DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent claims 2-19.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haller (EP 1990599).
Regarding independent claim 1, Haller discloses a method for recovering bullets from a backstop, the method comprising: collecting fired bullets (G) and backstop material (18’) from the backstop (10); and separating the collected bullets and backstop material based on buoyancy of the collected bullets and backstop material in a liquid (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4), the liquid having a density that is greater than the density of the backstop material and less than the density of the collected bullets (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4).
Regarding independent claim 20, Haller discloses a system for collecting bullets from a backstop, the system comprising: an intake (40) configured to receive bullets (G) and backstop material (18’) collected from the backstop (10); and a separation tank (57) comprising a liquid having a density that is greater than the density of the backstop material but less than the density of the collected bullets (see Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig.; 4).
Regarding dependent claims 17 and 18, Haller discloses separating the collected bullets based on material composition of the bullets (see Fig. 5 and discussion of Fig. 5) and separating steel bullets from non-steel bullets using magnets (see Fig. 5 and discussion of Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller (EP 1990599) in view of Vogel (US 2,209,618). Haller discloses a method for recovering bullets from a backstop, the method comprising: collecting fired bullets (G) and backstop material (18’) from the backstop (10); and separating the collected bullets and backstop material based on buoyancy of the collected bullets and backstop material in a liquid (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4), the liquid having a density that is greater than the density of the backstop material and less than the density of the collected bullets (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4). Haller discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose that the liquid comprises a calcium chloride solution. However, Vogel discloses a similar method which utilizes a calcium chloride solution (see col. 1, lines 5-20) as a medium to separate solids for the purpose of providing a heavy liquid on which light material may float. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to utilize a liquid comprising a calcium chloride solution, as disclosed by Vogel, or the purpose of providing a heavy liquid on which light material may float.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller (EP 1990599) in view of Hwang (US 5,047,145). Haller discloses a method for recovering bullets from a backstop, the method comprising: collecting fired bullets (G) and backstop material (18’) from the backstop (10); and separating the collected bullets and backstop material based on buoyancy of the collected bullets and backstop material in a liquid (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4), the liquid having a density that is greater than the density of the backstop material and less than the density of the collected bullets (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4). Haller discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose that the liquid comprises at least one silicate or phosphates. However, Hwang discloses a similar method which utilizes a liquid having at least one silicate or phosphates (see col. 2, lines 35-45) for the purpose of dispersing the material in the liquid. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to utilize a liquid comprising at least one silicate or phosphates, as disclosed by Hwang, or the purpose of dispersing the material in the liquid.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller (EP 1990599) in view of Halaska et al. (US 5,128,027). Haller discloses a method for recovering bullets from a backstop, the method comprising: collecting fired bullets (G) and backstop material (18’) from the backstop (10); and separating the collected bullets and backstop material based on buoyancy of the collected bullets and backstop material in a liquid (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4), the liquid having a density that is greater than the density of the backstop material and less than the density of the collected bullets (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4). Haller discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose that the liquid comprises the surfactant additive sodium carbonate or the surfactant additive sodium bicarbonate. However, Halaska discloses a similar method which utilizes a liquid comprising the surfactant additive sodium carbonate or the surfactant additive sodium bicarbonate (see col. 4, lines 1-60) for the purpose of improving separation of the material in the liquid. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to utilize a liquid comprising the surfactant additive sodium carbonate or the surfactant additive sodium bicarbonate, as disclosed by Halaska, for the purpose of improving separation of the material in the liquid.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller (EP 1990599) in view of White (US 4,248,696). Haller discloses a method for recovering bullets from a backstop, the method comprising: collecting fired bullets (G) and backstop material (18’) from the backstop (10); and separating the collected bullets and backstop material based on buoyancy of the collected bullets and backstop material in a liquid (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4), the liquid having a density that is greater than the density of the backstop material and less than the density of the collected bullets (see at least Fig. 4 and discussion of Fig. 4). Haller discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose that the liquid comprises deionized water. However, White discloses a similar method which utilizes a liquid comprising deionized water (see col. 6, lines 50-60) for the purpose of improving separation of the material in the liquid. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to utilize a liquid comprising deionized water, as disclosed by White, for the purpose of improving separation of the material in the liquid.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller (EP 1990599) in view of White (US 4,248,696) and further in view of Wooldridge (US 9,707,594). The combination of Haller and White discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose drying and re-applying the separated backstop material to the backstop. However, Wooldrige discloses a similar method which includes drying and re-applying the separated backstop material to the backstop (see at least abstract) for the purpose of reusing the backstop material . It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to include drying and re-applying the separated backstop material to the backstop for the purpose of reusing the backstop material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10-14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sims (US 5,255,787) and Marui et al. (JP 2003053272) disclose systems and methods for separating bullets from ground or backstop material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653